In personal injury litigation, timing is everything. When defendants suddenly admit fault after years of denials, it’s not just frustrating—it’s a calculated legal tactic. However, these late admissions can be a powerful tool for plaintiffs when leveraged correctly. This article discusses how to turn these delayed admissions into advantages for your case.
The Impact of Late Admissions of Liability
Late liability admissions can significantly affect your case:
- They may influence jury perception and case outcomes
- They attempt to prevent crucial evidence on how the case was handled from reaching the jury
- They can undermine the defendant’s credibility
Our Strategic Approach: Crafting Effective Cross-Examination
We’ve developed a meticulous cross-examination strategy for the Defendant to expose and leverage these late admissions. Here’s how we do it:
There is some gamesmanship here. You may need to call the Defendant in your case in chief, if you suspect that the defense will not call their client and attempt to steal the final closing argument. This script is specifically designed for cross examination of the Defendant. However, the questions can be adjusted to accommodate a direct examination style of questioning:
- Confirm the Current Admission:
- “Mr. Jones, you now admit to this jury that you were the sole cause of the crash involving my client, correct?”
- “Mr. Jones, you now admit to this jury that you were the sole cause of the crash involving my client, correct?”
- Highlight the Contradiction:
- “But isn’t it true that in your answer to Samantha’s complaint, you denied causing the crash?”
- “But isn’t it true that in your answer to Samantha’s complaint, you denied causing the crash?”
- Address Defendant’s Objections:
- When the defense objects, we’re ready with on-point legal precedent: “Your Honor, the Court of Appeals of Georgia in Carver v. Saye, 198 Ga. App. 146 (1990) directly supports our position, holding that a plaintiff has the right to cross-examine a defendant on their answer, including denials, without having to introduce the pleadings into evidence, regardless whether the pre-trial order supersedes the pleadings.”
- And if you really love speaking objections (like I do!) you can continue with “Further, Your Honor, the defense stated in their opening statement that their client caused this wreck and we’re only here about money. If Mr. Jones had admitted to causing this wreck 389 days ago, when suit was filed, we might not even be here. This question goes to the witnesses credibility in front of this jury.”
- Systematically Present the Evidence:
- When the judge overrules the Defendant’s objection, we methodically go through each denial.
- Show the Defendant his Answer to the Complaint:
- “Isn’t it true that on [date], [number] days after the collision, in your answer on paragraph [number] you denied you caused the crash?”
- Show the Defendant his Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories:
- “Isn’t it true that on [date], [number] days after the collision, in your responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories or questions on question [number] you denied you caused the crash?”
- Show the Defendant his Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions
- “Isn’t it true that on [date], [number] days after the collision, in your response to Plaintiff’s request for admissions on admission number [number] you denied that you were responsible for causing the crash?”
- Show the Defendant his Deposition Transcript
- “Isn’t it true that on [date], [number] days a after the collision, you testified under oath that you did not cause the crash?”
- Drive Home The Timing
- “Isn’t it true, Mr. Jones, that in all of these documents that you and your attorneys filed in this lawsuit, you never admitted fault for causing this crash?”
- But on [insert date], you and your attorneys filed a pre-trial order – a document we’re required to file before the trial of this case – stating for the first time that you caused the car wreck?”
- “No further questions Your Honor.”
Critical Tips
STOP HERE! Do not go any further with your questioning. You don’t want to give the Defendant an opportunity to explain their position or provide an alternative reasoning. You only want to get enough information to argue to the jury that the only reason we’re here is because the Defendant has done everything but accept liability.
By stopping at this point, you’ve laid the groundwork for a powerful closing argument without giving the Defendant a chance to justify their actions. This strategy allows you to:
- Control the narrative;
- Plant seeds of doubt about the defendant’s integrity;
- Highlight the unnecessary actions the Defendant has used to prolong the case; and
- Emphasize the stress and inconvenience caused to your client.
Don’t Let Late Admissions Throw You Off Guard
Delayed admissions, while frustrating, can be powerful tools in personal injury litigation when handled correctly. By documenting the defendant’s changing stance and presenting it effectively to the jury, you can turn these late admissions into significant advantages for your client’s case.
Need Help With Your Case?
If you’re dealing with late liability admissions or need guidance on implementing this strategy in your case, we’re here to help. Contact us at 8334-The-Win for a free consultation and let our experienced team assist you in navigating these complex legal waters.